MAN/00BN/LSC/2022/0036 & 37 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BN/LSC/2022/0036 & 37, decided 18 January 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 125A and 143D Chorlton Road, Hulme, Manchester M15 4JG and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 125A and 143D Chorlton Road, Hulme, Manchester M15 4JG
Decision date: 18 January 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Scanlons Property Management LLP.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021) | — | £0 | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £10,787 | £2,696.75 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Following an explanation by Christian Taylor a property manager for Scanlan's and Johnathan Quayle, a director of both the Respondent and the cleaning company, we found that these charges were payable.”
“Following an explanation…we found that these charges were payable.”
“The Applicant had identified the main areas of the increase as management fees, building insurance, estate electricity, apartment repairs and maintenance, reserve fund contributions… we found that these charges were payable.”
“Following an explanation…we found that these charges were payable.”
“Following an explanation…we found that these charges were payable.”
“the Applicant contended that there was a failure in the accounts process and identified a duplicate invoice of £1,995 for a cleaning fee in 2021. His share totalling £36.97… As they had not provided any explanation for the duplicate we decided it was not payable.”
“The Respondent had not addressed any of the points in dispute, with any specificity, instead choosing to state that the Applicant's case was not clear. They had not provided any witness statements. They had not investigated the duplicate invoice.”
“the Respondents did not comply with directions, as set out above. There were no witness statements, full disclosure, or response to the items in dispute, and if they had, may well have led to settlement, or at least no need for an oral hearing. They clearly had not booked counsel in good time. The bundle had not been sent and the tribunal were forced to consider a debarring order. It was unclear what value the solicitors had brought to this application.”
“The Respondent has appeared to rely almost solely, if not completely, on lawyers without any explanation as to why they have done so and not proportionate to the issues in dispute, which were all straight forward and could have been easily dealt with by the management company.”
“We are particularly concerned by this approach, as a Director of the management company is also a Director of the cleaning company.”
This summary is assembled from the structured record of the published decision; amounts appear only where the tribunal stated them. Always rely on the full decision itself.